Everything You Thought You Knew About Jon Huntsman Is Wrong

With Herman Cain’s campaign suffering serious headwinds in recent days, voters of the recalcitrant “not-Romney” bloc may soon begin to shift. And while no Republican presidential contenders are without their foibles, there is at least one candidate who has not received fair consideration from the conservative electorate or media.

Despite scuttlebutt to the contrary, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is not a Democrat in disguise, but was in fact a relatively ambitious conservative governor. And if he is “moderate,” he is not appreciably more moderate than other leading candidates or party leaders. If one compares records honestly and looks at policy positions realistically, one will find that in many ways, Huntsman is more conservative than Mitt Romney — who will likely receive the Republican nomination. A surreal juxtaposition to be sure.

As governor of Utah, Huntsman ushered in a boldly transformed tax system. He flattened the tax code, doing away with many, though not all, deductions and credits, and changing six-brackets of progressive income tax rates into one low 5% rate. (Compare with Rick Perry’s proposed 20% flat income tax and Herman Cain’s emblematic 9%.) According to PoliFact.com, this new system reduced taxes approximately 30% for the wealthiest residents, and due to remaining tax deductions “the effective tax rate [was] about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income[.]” He also eliminated the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit Reagan supported and which many Republicans today label “socialist.”

Also according to PolitiFact, which simply crunched Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, Utah was fourth in the nation for job creation during the period immediately preceding and including the 2008-2009 recession, right behind Texas, which was third in the nation.

This is just the beginning. One proposal in Washington that has seemingly become too radical for even many leading Republicans to fully sign on to is the “Ryan plan,” which would rein in unsustainable entitlements, most notably Medicare. Newt Gingrich has criticized the Ryan plan, and has vacillated considerably on the proposal — at best, he seems to think it’s too big, too soon, although at one point he said he would vote for it. Romney supports a weaker version of the Ryan plan, which would not phase out Medicare, but keep it as an option, allowing private carriers to compete with it — we might call it the “competitive option,” a Democratic euphemism for the “public option.” Michele Bachmann supports the Ryan plan, but also voiced reservations regarding potential changes to Medicare. Huntsman, on the other hand, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal commending the Ryan plan, and has said he would vote for it. He has re-iterated, unequivocally, his support on multiple occasions. This puts Huntsman in the same camp as Herman Cain and, to some extent, Rick Perry, who wants states to be able to opt out of entitlements and believes they’re “Ponzi schemes.” Mitt Romney later criticized this very accurate characterization of entitlements, saying Perry’s rhetoric was over the top and frightening.

Of course, one other noteworthy item on Huntsman’s resume is that he pursued free market-based health care reform in Utah. The system primarily involved a competitive private health care exchange, diversified consumer options, and electronic medical records. Gregg Girvan of the Heritage Foundation praised it as a “blueprint” for state health care reform. Furthermore, the state did not impose a health insurance mandate on private citizens, although early on, Huntsman seemed to have favored a mandate, as did former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have endorsed insurance mandates of some kind and seem to think that they’re necessary features of a workable health care reform model. On a related note, like most other candidates, Huntsman also said he would repeal Obamacare.

Huntsman has also been consistently pro-life, and has spoken very passionately on the issue. He signed numerous pro-life laws while governor, including making second trimester abortions illegal, enacting fetal pain awareness legislation, and instituting a trigger to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned. He also supports a “right to life” amendment to the Constitution. He has not signed the Susan B. Anthony List pledge (Romney and Cain have not either), but his record speaks for itself, and he has been praised by numerous pro-life groups. Like Chris Christie, he believes in abortion exceptions for incest and rape. But compared to other candidates? With the views Mitt Romney has held in the past, it is almost unbelievable that he is pro-life in truth, but is in fact lying about his views. Meanwhile, Herman Cain’s pro-life stance seems to be indefinable.

Contempt for Evangelical Christians didn’t stop John McCain from winning the nomination in 2008, and his contempt was frequent, vehement, and became almost a knee-jerk reaction for him whenever he got pushed from the right. Compared to that, Huntsman has been reasonably tolerant.

(Full disclosure: I identify as an Evangelical, although at the same time, like McCain or Huntsman, I have issues with those who put government action with regards to social issues ahead of economic or defense issues in terms of their voting priorities.)

LOL, I’m an atheist and I don’t like either Huntsman or Romney. I’m supporting Newt Gingrich in part because of his conversion to Catholacism and his clean record since marrying his current wife. After all, the whole point of Christianity is supposed to be forgiveness for your sins. Wasn’t Jesus quoted as telling someone (probably many someones) “Go and sin no more”?

Why is it always “Athiests” that use Biblical quotes and parables to “Prove” their points…lol

My personal preference? ABO.

I believe that we need to Triage the Country, Stop the Bleeding of Money, Jobs, Businesses and Investments overseas!

NO MORE DEBATES, The more we fight amongst ourselves the worse The Candidates look to the voting public. The Republicans aren’t the enemy of the People, Obama and the Democraps are!

We are just giving Obama too much time to campaign and raise money! We are also giving Obama more ammunition to use against our Candidate. I’m prepared to compromise and support with my time and money any of the top tier of Candidates that have a chance of Beating Obama.

Just for the record, I nearly said “Anybody BUT Ron Paul!”

Dr. Paul you are embarrassing yourself, please go home to Texas and stop wasting people’s time & money. Only the 10,000 odd Computer savvy Libertarian Ronulons and Dopers support you Dude.

And it puts him apart from every congressional Republican–because they all voted against the stimulus package.

If Huntsman were the GOP nominee, how could he run against Obama’s “jobs plan” (Stimulus 2.0) when he was already on the record as saying we needed to spend even more than the first stimulus package did?

As a life long conservative, Michele Bachmann is the only conservative candidate.

Most of these others, have or do support mandated health care, amnesty (again), Tarp, Cap and Trade, etc. Another establishment liberal Republican would be a disaster.

Who was out front on trying to block TARP, GOV run Healthcare, raising the debt ceiling, etc? Who was supportive and out front with the Tea Party from the start? I don’t remember seeing these other guys out front – talk is cheap.

She certainly is not embraced by the establishment RINO Republicans – kind of like Reagan. What’s the problem?

There is good and bad in all of us, as Stevie Wonder sang in his Ebony and Ivory song, and so it is with Huntsman. While the good things are in line with conservative values, the issues involving gay marriage and immigration can’t be sugar coated to the satisfaction of the true conservative right. Illegal immigration is the single most serious problem facing our nation today. As they stream across our borders illegaly and take up residence, demanding the rights and freebies available to our own citizens, they serve to strip from within our nation’s soverignty and the more they do it unimpeded, the less authority we retain to deal with it. There is nothing wrong with immigration, but EVERYTHING is wrong with illegal immigration. The current occupy movement is a warning of the scale of trouble this nation will face when an organized agenda of prolonged tolerance of crime, which illegal immigration is, rears it ugly head. The same holds true for Gay marriage, LBGT Community, Alternative Lifestyle etc. These are just sugary names for homosexuality, which retains its insideous tone when spoken of and viewed in that context. We have given them a foothold as well in this nation out of fear, and through our schools and the Apostate Nicolatian churches that seem to be everywhere, they have a firm radar lock on our children.

Thats the reality of these issues and there is no one candidate strong enough, or porular enough, or rich enough to effectively address these and the myriad of other troubles we face. There are things to like about Huntsman for sure, as well as the rest of the field, but the seriousness of the issues facing our nation shouldn’t allow those few things to win the day for any of them, which seems to leave us zero options.

“And if he is “moderate,” he is not appreciably more moderate than other leading candidates or party leaders.”

And THAT is the problem! Most of these people are nothing but RINOs, a little more conservative than Obama. NONE of them have the will or the backbone to actually CHANGE how business is done in Washington. They may save a little money here, make a few slender reforms there, but not much will change and our deficits will still be enormous and our debt will still be unsustainable. We will still have a bloated Federal bureaucracy with way too many people working for it and we will still be taxing and spending way too much, with few ideas of bringing those levels down. Huntsman is about the same as Romney, which means that you will be getting someone who is a little more conservative than Obama. Big deal. You are going to need a reformer AND a true conservative to tame Washington, and that is a hard combination to find.

Do not despair, gang. We will NOT give up and four more years of Obama is NOT an option.

If we can’t get the people we want to run, then it is up to us to convince the actual candidates that they need to be terrified of conservatives. Can’t be done, you say? Well we did it in 2010. The Tea Party activists got their own candidates elected to office in both the House and the Senate. We can do it again in 2012 and take over the Senate as well as holding on to the House. By controlling Congress, we can make any Republican president, or presidential candidate, do pretty much whatever we want. Even if he vetoes a bill, we would have enough power to override the veto. And if we do not have the power to override the veto, we certainly would be strong enough to hold up any agenda a bad president may have. Look at how the House is stopping Obama and the Senate Democrats from implementing their agenda. If we controlled all of Congress, the president would pretty much have to do whatever Congress told him to do, unless he wants to be a lame duck during the first year of his presidency.

So things are really not that bad. As always, change starts from the bottom. We proved that by taking the House in 2010 and we can prove it again by taking all of Congress in 2012. So even if you have a RINO in the White House, he will certainly have to listen to the conservatives in Congress. Who knows, even a RINO Republican president may like some of the ideas coming out of a conservative Congress.

Remember…the person we need to save us from statist decline is, if elected purely on the basis of qualification as a non-statist, not/repeat/not currently electable. The makeup of modern American society has devolved to the point where a person like Obama, with his thin resume and highly sketchy past and associations, was able to be elected by a landslide. Obama is a SYMPTOM of American decay, not a cause. The absolutely best that the freedom-loving Americans left in this once-great country can achieve is to select a candidate who can get past vast statist gauntlet (ie vast Left Wing Conspiracy), and come out of the RINO shell after winning the general election like a thousand soldiers from a Trogan Horse, to show the true colors of Conservatism and save the Republic from its downward spiral. This is how Obama himself snuck past you all. And it’s working for the left like no other plan would have. We just have to ‘know’ which of these ‘RINO’s is going to drop the RINO mask and go full Conservative after election. For my money, either Newt or Huntsman.

John Huntsman is the man Romney is accused of being. He’s not a conservative but I don’t think he’s liberal either. I would guess the only thing I have against him is that if he’s touting himself as a conservative, he’s being not being truthful to himself or the public,

While I think a candidate/president that could get conservatives, moderates and liberals on board, so that we could actually work on substantive solutions instead of whining and posing, is a good thing. Someone who is not truthful about their agenda/ideal is no better than what we have now. Mr. Huntsman needs Obama to give him another job in his administration, someplace nice and quiet like Monacco or Switzerland. Somewhere he can’t get into too much trouble.

I absolutely love Mr. Huntsman! Only republitard I would ever consider supporting. His positions on global-warming, gays, and illegal aliens (as if there can really be anything “illegal” about someone being back in the country that angry Europeans stole in the first place) make even a moderate, somewhat left-leaning (slightly) person like me admire him. I also like Huntsman’s position on sensible regulation of the baked goods market.

Your support for the reasons you list are the perfect justification for opposing Huntsman. If he pleases you lefties, there’s nothing worth considering about him. The only candidate worth consideration is someone you hate. That’s the long and short of it.

I don’t see how you can support Huntsman’s position on regulating baked goods. I found his position on baked beans fairly reasonable at first, but then I thought…why shouldn’t each person judge for him/her self whether or not they want their baked beans with or without bacon bits? Why insist that bacon bits be pre-emptorially removed without giving each of us a choice? I agree it would address our obesity epidemic, but still…it should be left up to the individual. His ideas about baked truffles confuses me. Who bakes truffles? I slice them up and slide them between slices of Camembert, or use them in sauces or soups. Getting back to removing bacon bits from baked beans, maybe Huntsman has a thing against pigs. Maybe he thinks we still use pigs to find our truffles, whereas everyone knows we now use dogs. And his suggestion of not allowing powdered sugar on donuts is outlandish.

The actual course of American government policy has been moderate during my decades of political consciousness. The deviations to left and right have not altered the general trend toward the aggrandizement of government power decade after decade.

The present condition of the country is not satisfactory. Future prospects still less so.

So Huntsman is a little more conservative than Romney, and we conservatives should like him for that. Puleeeze! Like saying death by a 100 ton asteroid is preferable to death by fire. It’s still death. Of the many reasons to pass on Huntsman The Rino, Two are: The Democrats like him mucho, and his endorsement of the global warming scam. H cites some opinions scientists as proof. Can’t he do his own thinking? Years ago, it took me one day of investigating to figure out the truth of the AGW claim. Since then, no evidence has come to light to disprove my first conclusion that it is false, and a pile of data to reinforce it.

All Rino’s do some head faking to the right hoping conservatives will swallow the bait, and ignore their real lefty position.

But you see, this is where you lose credibility. I’m not downplaying what Huntsman did in his state, what I AM saying is that you DON’T compare a state income tax rate with a proposed federal income tax rate. If that were an accurate comparison, you’d have to say that Perry presides over a 0% tax rate in Texas. It has NOTHING to do with what could be done on the federal level, now does it?

He talks about the tax reduction in Utah, I have never seen one!
It seems like we always get back some from the feds, always have
to pay the state.
I don’t even know why he is in the debates. Polling at 1% doesn’t cut it
for anyone else!
There’s no way he wold ever be elected in Utah, once was enough and that
only because of the good name of his father.

Good grief, not another one. We have mormons coming out of the woodwork and filling up the list of contenders. Why now?

Mormons politicians have proven one thing to me; they are only able to represent 50% of the population of Utah. That 50% is always males. So, if they were to occupy the WH, then it is not unreasonable to expect they will only represent 50% of the nation. That is definitely NOT good enough.

Thirty some years ago they were spoken to about their deceifulness. So far, it would appear that they have ignored what the Throne had to say.
Now every Joe Smith on the planet wants to be President….I say NO.

Huntsman blew his introduction and early money, and has avoided Iowa like the plague. A trifecta that makes it difficult for him to have any chance even if he does manage 2nd place in New Hampshire, which I doubt.
He should come clean and admit that he is now Episcopalian, and maybe have a chance at being next in line when the GOP blows 2012 by nominating Waffle Romney.

writing as a disillusioned dem who still supports Gov. Perry, but would vote for Gingrich, Bachmann, or Huntsman.

Romney is NOT electable, and Everything9-9-9Cain is an embarrassment to the GOP.

Politics has a problem. It won’t let you be who you are and politics and media promote it.

To be a politician you have to be on the threshold of principle breakdown all of the time. You can’t be who you are. The media won’t tolerate it, and neither will the party.

You have to impinge on the corners of your own principles so you can ‘engage as many people as possible.’

P.U.! I want a man who stands strong and on his principles. Its up to ME to come to terms with his positions in my decision making process. Having candidates, like obama, that continuously make obviously false campaign promises, only promotes lying politicians. What good is that? It demonstrate that standing on the ground you have “carved” for your character is worth defending. Who you ARE is worth defending.

I’m not 100% convinced that Americans actually want the truth. Nor am I convinced they want to make it on their own, any more.

One of Mr. Huntsman’s strongest points is a deep understanding of China; he is fluent in their language. This will be a great benefit in the next Administration, because America’s future is tied to our relationship with this growing Asian power. Military positions, trade, technology, climate change, fossil combustion, relations with North Korea, and our alliance with Japan, will be pivotal issues with China, for peace and prosperity. There is no other Republican on the stage, with comparable experience.

However, his position on climate change, and carbon combustion, is a deal killer. America must decide on a rational energy policy: do we use our native fossil fuels, or not? Carbon combustion is the bedrock of the industrial revolution, and any nation that severely curtails it will see their standard of living plummet. Uranium can help for central generation, but our hard choice is simple: burn carbon or cease to be an advanced industrial nation. There are no alternatives for base loaded supply. Politicians have been kicking this can down the calendar for decades; now we are out of time.

Huntsman would only be slightly better than Obama, wrong on a life or death issue.

Except Huntsman is naive about China. His idea is to support the blogger in China as the new revolutionary. For all the time and effort his spent in China he didn’t much. Too much ivory tower time I think.

On that note, let me add here just as a point of reference that the controversy about Huntsman NOT being fluent in Mandarin that hit various websites a few weeks ago wasn’t actually such a big deal. While the videos are hard to find if you can’t search in Chinese, there are Chinese TV interviews with Huntsman doing a decent job answering in Chinese to make this whole accusation kind of lame. Besides, it is typically assumed ambassadors make errors in speaking just because of the difficulty of the language. Jokes about about unintended double-entendres due to improper tones, so this should be a non-issue in case anyone is wondering.

“These Republicans are, in fact, no more than following the legacy of George W. Bush, who also deferred to scientific consensus on the seriousness of global warming and pursued stricter environmental policies during his tenure (some of which President Obama is trying to undo).”

Perhaps Nichole might enlighten us on exactly what, in this regard, Obama is attempting to undo. And with regard to John Huntsman, Obama will eat him for lunch.

Rather than focusing his campaign on Obama’s failings and failures, Huntsman has already said that he sees 2012 as a “choice between two philosophies.”

Guess what, that’s exactly the way Obama wants to frame the election too! Because that way Obama doesn’t have to defend his lousy track record as incumbent President. He is then free to take the offensive and go negative on the GOP nominee.

When an incumbent runs for re-election, it’s always a referendum on his job performance. It’s understandable that Obama doesn’t want it that way. But it’s bizarre that Huntsman agrees with him.

As a California Republican, I’m resigned to the fact that the nominee will be chosen well before my primary, and that in the final analysis my vote will mean nothing in November 2012 given the peculiarities of my state. Forums like this one are the only place I have to exercise any real influence (such as it may be).

A couple of points (for what they’re worth):

1) Every time I lament the weakness of the field, I am reminded of how positively giddy the liberal comentariat was in 1979 at the prospect of a Reagan candidacy. Everyone KNEW he couldn’t POSSIBLY win. We may have a Reagan in this years field, but given the nature of campaign media coverage, we’ll never really know until that man (or woman) takes office.

2) The damage the current administration is doing to the cultural and economic infrastructure of this country will take an extraordinary level of political and administrative skill to undo. Ideological purity can wait the one or two election cycles it will take to “hose out the barn.” In the meantime, consider the depth charts of our freshman team. We have a bumper crop of young dynamic leaders in Congress, statehouses and the military as strong as any red-blooded conservative could hope for.

The only imperative for now is that the GOP win next year, hopefully with strong congressional majorities. Heaven can wait.

When Huntsman was governor of Utah is was involved in trying to get a federal law passed that would designate illegal aliens as missionaries for the LDS church. The church would provide housing etc in exchange for farmwork. This information can be found by a simple google search.

At any rate, it did not pass, however as far as I am concerned it was an attempt at amnesty at the expense of the alien, virtually making them a slave to the church. Working for room and board.

This is not anything being covered by the media; but would come up if he were the candidate. I don’t believe he has a chance in hell, and I am thankful for that.

Whom ever is the nominee, if he or she does not commit to cutting Govt. by about a third and overturning “O” care well friends we are closer by 4 years to a very uncivil war.

There are those of “US” in about these parts who are not going to “PAY” much longer for those who don’t have any skin in the game and are not producing. The “KEYS” experiment is over, The education system is a mess, the next generation apparently thinks they are entitled to just about everything and business is thought of in negatives by way too many folks (the so called intelligentsia) who have had their collective heads out of the sun for a quarter of a century or longer.

Time for “US” is jut about up if there is no “WASHINGTON, ADAMS, LINCOLN, OR TRUMAN-YES I SAID TRUMAN OUT THERE. A Regan will not fix this. Perry & Herman seem to be the only two so far who realize to fix “US” its going to take-a meat Ax to cut apart this “Jabba the Hutt” type Govt. we allowed to be created -and yes we allowed it no to blame but “US”

So be prepared if one of the aforementioned types does not show up-a “WAR” is going to come -(oh your a nut!) that I may be but I intent to be a prepared one.

p.s. Dear Mr President and congressional leaders, a modest suggestion from one of those
who lives in “FLY-OVER” country, you know that part of the country you take for granted-
Check your “6″ times just about up!
p.p.s. Dear Ms. Bartiromo, for future reference don’t try to compete with Mr. Newt. Your not at his level and likely never will be.

“As governor of Utah, Huntsman ushered in a boldly transformed tax system. He flattened the tax code, doing away with many, though not all, deductions and credits, and changing six-brackets of progressive income tax rates into one low 5% rate. (Compare with Rick Perry’s proposed 20% flat income tax and Herman Cain’s emblematic 9%)…”

How exactly are you comparing what the then governor of Utah (a state) did with the STATE income tax code with what Perry and Cain are proposing as reformations to the federal tax code? I don’t get it. If you were being honest with yourself and your readers shouldn’t you have compared what Huntsman did in Utah with what Perry has done in Texas? According to your article Huntsman boldly transformed the tax code in Utah and changed from a confusing progressive tax sytem to a simple and LOW flat rate of 5%. On the other hand Texans also enjoy a low flat rate … there’s is ZERO%. Yes, I realize that Texas has never had an income tax. My point is that you are comparing apples to oranges in an attempt to make your guy shine a little.

I don’t trust Huntsman. He also appears to reciting what his polling expert globalist masters tell him to recite. He’s a trained dog and a phony. I noticed mainstream news very cleverly finds a way to interject his name,always in a complimentary way. I think the bad guys are backing Huntsman.

Huntsman has a few personal problems that can’t be disciplined, apparently. One
is a certain hostility that may, or may not be, because he does not like campaigning, or feels he so superior. He, certainly, doesn’t have a corner on intelligence, or experience. Humility is a desirable trait, and one truly intelligent and learned individuals have. Afterall, he was our ambassador to China, recently, while too much has deteriorated during his tenure, there. He, also, believes in Cap and Trade. Romney has to clarify his thinking on the environment, as well. He does not engage trust, nor is he a likable person, and that trumps a great deal, like it, or not.

Its this easy. If Bill Maher and other leftists are for him, conservatives can be sure he would be bad for the country and be against him. This whole piece is a waste of time. Thankfully that clown doesn’t have a chance.